Editorial: City taxpayers shouldn’t get stuck with this road repair bill

Copart of Connecticut, the company suing the city of Concord because the police ticket its drivers for using roads not designed for routine truck traffic, is not some struggling auto salvage business that needs to bend the rules to make a buck. It’s a publicly traded, $4 billion company that does business internationally. It should not be permitted to pass a portion of its cost of doing business onto local taxpayers, who will have to pay to rebuild rural, residential roads damaged by its trucks.

Copart purchases salvage cars that it sells in online auctions that, according to the company website, allow buyers to bid “from anywhere in the world.” It keeps some of those vehicles in a storage yard on Deer Meadow Road in Webster. To get there, drivers of trucks loaded with salvage vehicles have been getting off Interstate 93 at Exit 15 and taking North State Street to Bog Road, a narrow winding road that, as its name implies, passes through wetlands. The route is 10 miles shorter than traveling on truck routes, but Bog Road was not designed to withstand regular truck traffic.

The company claims that an exception in the ordinance allows it to take the shortcut if doing so “is necessary to the conduct of business at that destination point.” The exception, we assume, was included to allow construction vehicles or large delivery trucks temporary access. It should not be seen as a license to locate a business that requires regular service by heavy vehicles on a substandard road.

Copart claims that if can’t use Concord roads not designed for truck travel it will have to relocate its Webster business. Better that than sticking Concord taxpayers with the repair bills and Penacook residents with the safety issues created when trucks routinely travel residential roads.

Let me get this straight; according to the Monitor's Editorial Board, a taxpayer is not entitled to use a road, or expect the city to maintain it, because it's a multi-national, $4 billion company? This taxpayer should pay for road repairs because why? Because it's wealthy? Does that mean I should pay for snowplowing in front of my house because I have more money in the bank than my neighbor? It's good to see that, even after an extended absence, nothing has changed at The Communist Monitor.

BarryO wrote:

06/13/2013

What politician or official lives on the truck travel route? There is no other logical reason to pursue this, is bog road posted no through trucking?

gdn1 wrote:

06/13/2013

So much for supporting business.
I laughed out loud yesterday when I read the comment from some city official, who said that the trucks would lead to premature road deteioration. I guess all the other trucks going up and down the freshly paved North State Street will have no effect on deteriorating the road. It also begs the question: did they not engineer the street to handle the weight of trucks? There are a lot of trucks far heavier using North State street every hour of the day. As for Bog Road and Horse Hill Road, seriously? Bog Road is already a fine example of what is wrong with city priorities, how much more deteriorated need it get before it gets rebuilt? Horse Hill Road is only marginally better, but only during non-frost heave season. In the winter time, the 2 roads are among the worst in Concord.

BestPresidentReagan wrote:

06/13/2013

More from the liberal democrat WAR on BUSINESS

GCarson wrote:

06/13/2013

I really fail to understand your commentary process. Perhaps they could become more creative without the ever present constant buzz words........................ This has nothing to do with a war on business, which you would understand if you had ever been by the Copart location. This is a $4 billion company who new full well what would happen if they built in the middle of no where. There is not a route to this facility that isn't a twisting backwoods road with numerous 90 degree turns, limited visibility and several one lane bridges. This is more a safety concern. I can understand Concord's take on the situation. Webster on the other hand approved the building and operating of Copart so I can only assume that what Copart will pay in property taxes will cover any maintenance issues that would arise. Why else would they issue the permits??